Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29535784›Full record

ReviewStem cells international2018

Stem Cells for Cartilage Repair: Preclinical Studies and Insights in Translational Animal Models and Outcome Measures.

Melissa Lo Monaco, Greet Merckx, Jessica Ratajczak, Pascal Gervois, Petra Hilkens, Peter Clegg, Annelies Bronckaers, Jean-Michel Vandeweerd, Ivo Lambrichts

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cells international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 3D-bioprinting for joint regeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cells · 2022
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Melissa Lo MonacoDepartment of Morphology, Biomedical Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Campus Diepenbeek, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1799-094X
Greet MerckxDepartment of Morphology, Biomedical Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Campus Diepenbeek, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4052-3773
Jessica RatajczakDepartment of Morphology, Biomedical Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Campus Diepenbeek, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Pascal GervoisDepartment of Morphology, Biomedical Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Campus Diepenbeek, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Petra HilkensDepartment of Morphology, Biomedical Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Campus Diepenbeek, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8258-6695
Peter CleggDepartment of Musculoskeletal Biology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston CH64 7TE, UK.
Annelies BronckaersDepartment of Morphology, Biomedical Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Campus Diepenbeek, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Jean-Michel VandeweerdDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Integrated Veterinary Research Unit-Namur Research Institute for Life Science (IVRU-NARILIS), Faculty of Sciences, University of Namur, 5000 Namur, Belgium.
Ivo LambrichtsDepartment of Morphology, Biomedical Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Campus Diepenbeek, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Hasselt University · BEUniversity of Namur · BEUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P020941/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the restricted intrinsic capacity of resident chondrocytes to regenerate the lost cartilage postinjury, stem cell-based therapies have been proposed as a novel therapeutic approach for cartilage repair. Moreover, stem cell-based therapies using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have been used successfully in preclinical and clinical settings. Despite these promising reports, the exact mechanisms underlying stem cell-mediated cartilage repair remain uncertain. Stem cells can contribute to cartilage repair via chondrogenic differentiation, via immunomodulation, or by the production of paracrine factors and extracellular vesicles. But before novel cell-based therapies for cartilage repair can be introduced into the clinic, rigorous testing in preclinical animal models is required. Preclinical models used in regenerative cartilage studies include murine, lapine, caprine, ovine, porcine, canine, and equine models, each associated with its specific advantages and limitations. This review presents a summary of recent

Identifiers

PMID29535784
PMCPMC5832141
OpenAlexW2787082795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.